MOBILE VIEW  | 

PLANTS-THORN INJURY

Classification   |    Detailed evidence-based information

Therapeutic Toxic Class

    A) The Cactaceae are a large and diversified group of plants, many of which have thorns. Since the flesh and fruit of many of these species (especially Opuntia) are edible, spines are often encountered while other parts are being gathered for food. Cacti are distributed throughout the world and are used as houseplants.
    1) Encounters with cactus spines, needles, prickles and glochids (barbed hairs) are no longer rare. Household exposures are becoming more common. This management deals primarily with the results of mechanical exposures to spines, rather than toxic substances which might be included in the plant pulp.
    B) The clinical significance of cactus or other spines is roughly inversely proportional to the size of the spines.
    C) NON-CACTUS SPECIES: Plant thorn (Palm thorn) synovitis, granulomas, and other foreign body reactions from non-cactus species are also discussed in this management.

Specific Substances

    A) CONSTITUENTS OF THE GROUP
    1) Pereskieae
    2) Opuntieae
    3) Cactaceae
    4) Palm thorn injury
    5) Thorn injury
    6) Rose thorns
    7) Bougainvillea thorn

Available Forms Sources

    A) FORMS
    1) The shape, color, and type of spines and prickles vary considerably from genus to genus, as well as from species to species (Pizzetti, 1985).
    2) Synovitis, granulomas, and other foreign body reactions have been caused by a number of plants, including:
    a) Blackthorn (Kelly, 1966).
    b) Palm thorns (Kahn, 1978; Sugarman et al, 1977; Borja, 1963; Weston, 1963; McKellar, 1960) Maylahn, 1957).
    c) Box thorns (Weston, 1963).
    d) Hawthorns (Rosenfeld et al, 1978; Gerle, 1971).
    e) Rose thorns (Ormerod et al, 1984; Maylahn, 1952).
    f) Yucca thorns (Maylahn, 1952).
    g) Mesquite thorn (Yousefzadeh & Jackson, 1978).
    h) Bougainvillea thorn (Yousefzadeh & Jackson, 1978).
    i) Cactus (Stevens et al, 1995; Spoerke & Spoerke, 1991; McManigal & Henderson, 1986) (Klein & McGahn, 1985) (Snyder & Schwartz, 1983; Schreiber et al, 1971) (Shanon & Sager, 1956)(Winer & Zeilenga, 1955).

Life Support

    A) This overview assumes that basic life support measures have been instituted.

Clinical Effects

    0.2.1) SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE
    A) BACKGROUND: This management deals primarily with results of exposure to cactus or plant thorns or spines, rather than any toxic substances which might be included in the plant pulp. CACTACEAE: The Cactaceae are a large and diversified group of plants, many of which have thorns. Since the flesh and fruit of many of these species (especially Opuntia) are edible, spines are often encountered while other parts are being gathered for food. Cacti are distributed throughout the world and are used as houseplants. NON-CACTUS SPECIES: Plant thorn (eg, palm thorn) synovitis, granulomas, and other foreign body reactions from non-cactus species are also discussed.
    B) EPIDEMIOLOGY: Encounters with cactus spines, needles, prickles and glochids (barbed hairs) are no longer rare. Household exposures are becoming more common. Significant injury is generally uncommon. ADVERSE EFFECTS: The clinical significance of cactus or other spines is roughly inversely proportional to the size of the spines.
    C) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    1) ADVERSE EFFECTS: The clinical significance of cactus or other spines is roughly inversely proportional to the size of the spines.
    2) MILD TO MODERATE INJURY: Mechanical damage may occur due to the spines and barbs of any of these species. Penetrating injuries due to spines commonly cause soft tissue swelling and inflammation. Itching and hypersensitivity can also develop following contact with spines. Occupational dermatitis is also common following glochid exposure. Granulomas have developed following cactus spine or plant thorn injuries. Bacterial and fungal infections have been reported, but are not common. Infection is more likely to occur if the spines or thorns are retained or incompletely removed.
    3) SEVERE INJURY: Imbedded spines or plant thorns (eg, palm thorns are more likely to cause secondary complications) retained for long periods have resulted in foreign body granulomatous inflammation, synovitis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis and periostitis.

Laboratory Monitoring

    A) Identification of large retained spines may be aided using ultrasound, computed tomography, and/or magnetic resonance imaging. Routine plain radiologic exams are usually not helpful in identifying spines or plant thorns.
    B) No specific lab work (CBC, electrolytes) is needed unless otherwise clinically indicated.
    C) Wound cultures are usually negative. Histiologic examination of wounds shows acute and chronic inflammation.
    D) Retained spine material may stain red with PAS.
    E) In rare cases, palm thorn injuries have resulted in Pantoea agglomerans infections especially if the thorn was retained for a long period.

Treatment Overview

    0.4.5) DERMAL EXPOSURE
    A) OVERVIEW
    1) MANAGEMENT OF THORN INJURY
    a) The primary goal of treatment is to remove the spines before they can cause significant secondary reaction or infection, meanwhile reducing irritation and pain. Infection of cactus spine punctures is uncommon. Although spines may cause a granulomatous reaction, the hazard of leaving the spines imbedded has to be weighed against the damage that will be done by an extensive dissection. If the spine is imbedded in tendons or joints, the indications for removal are higher than if imbedded in muscle or fat.
    2) DECONTAMINATION
    a) Manipulation of the affected area may cause further imbedding of spines. Use care not to spread the hairs or spines from contaminated clothing.
    3) SPINE REMOVAL
    a) SUMMARY: Large spines may be removed by using a tweezers or forceps.
    b) OTHER METHODS: Glochids (fine spines) may be removed by using an adhesive plaster or household glue. Methods include tape, facial masks, woodworking glue, or pharmaceutical plasters.
    c) SUPERFICIAL SPINES: Superficially imbedded spines may be removed by using a 25-gauge needle.
    d) DEEPLY IMBEDDED: Spines need to be removed to prevent secondary infection and ulceration. This may need to be done under local anesthesia.
    4) PLANT THORN SYNOVITIS
    a) This condition may occur from thorns of many different plants including: cactus, sea urchin spines, sentinel palm, blackthorns, Spanish bayonet, rose thorns, or even wood slivers. The material may only become evident on microscopic tissue examination, exploratory surgery, or arthroscopy. Multi-view x-rays, fluoroscopic localization, dye injection at puncture site, and operative steriotaxic equipment have all been used to localize embedded foreign bodies. In addition, identification of large retained spines may be aided using ultrasound computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Irrigation of the joint with normal saline may be all that is required (5 of 7 cases in one series), but arthrotomy and synovectomy may be required in some cases. Obtain cultures and treat with appropriate culture-sensitive antibiotic therapy as indicated. NSAIDs may help alleviate some symptoms.
    5) TOPICAL ANESTHETICS
    a) Topical anesthetics may provide some temporary relief, especially from intense irritation caused by Opuntia glochids.
    b) Antihistamines or pain medications and topical corticosteroids have not been of proven value in the majority of cases.
    6) EMPIRIC ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY
    a) Infection of cactus spine punctures is uncommon. In rare cases, penetrating thorns (eg, palm thorns), in particular those found in the knee or foot and retained for long periods can result in bacterial growth. Pantoea agglomerans, formerly known as Enterobacter agglomerans, has been identified in several cases of septic arthritis following palm thorn injuries. Empiric antibiotic coverage should include gram-negative enteric pathogens; reevaluate once cultures results are available.
    7) PATIENT DISPOSITION
    a) HOME CRITERIA: Small spines that are easily removed using an adhesive may be managed at home if all spines appear to be removed. If irritation, swelling, erythema, or pain develop, further evaluation is warranted. Most cases of cactus spine injuries are dealt with by removal of the spines and the use of topical corticosteroids. Usually, granulomatous reactions resolve within 2 to 4 months.
    b) OBSERVATION CRITERIA: Physician evaluation may be necessary for small spines not easily removed with adhesives or tweezers; for removal of retained spines and deeply imbedded spines. Persistent inflammation or signs of infection should be evaluated by a physician.
    c) ADMISSION CRITERIA: Hospital admission is unlikely to be necessary in most cases unless surgery is necessary to remove a deeply imbedded spine or thorn.
    d) CONSULT CRITERIA: Surgical consultant should be considered in cases with a deeply imbedded spine, particularly if the spine is suspected or found to be in a joint or tendon.
    8) DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
    a) Reactive arthritis may be due to other causes including other foreign bodies, monoarticular rheumatoids arthritis, pigmented villonodular synovitis, transient synovitis, posttraumatic synovitis, or leukemia. These injuries may also stimulate bone or soft tissue tumors.

Summary Of Exposure

    A) BACKGROUND: This management deals primarily with results of exposure to cactus or plant thorns or spines, rather than any toxic substances which might be included in the plant pulp. CACTACEAE: The Cactaceae are a large and diversified group of plants, many of which have thorns. Since the flesh and fruit of many of these species (especially Opuntia) are edible, spines are often encountered while other parts are being gathered for food. Cacti are distributed throughout the world and are used as houseplants. NON-CACTUS SPECIES: Plant thorn (eg, palm thorn) synovitis, granulomas, and other foreign body reactions from non-cactus species are also discussed.
    B) EPIDEMIOLOGY: Encounters with cactus spines, needles, prickles and glochids (barbed hairs) are no longer rare. Household exposures are becoming more common. Significant injury is generally uncommon. ADVERSE EFFECTS: The clinical significance of cactus or other spines is roughly inversely proportional to the size of the spines.
    C) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    1) ADVERSE EFFECTS: The clinical significance of cactus or other spines is roughly inversely proportional to the size of the spines.
    2) MILD TO MODERATE INJURY: Mechanical damage may occur due to the spines and barbs of any of these species. Penetrating injuries due to spines commonly cause soft tissue swelling and inflammation. Itching and hypersensitivity can also develop following contact with spines. Occupational dermatitis is also common following glochid exposure. Granulomas have developed following cactus spine or plant thorn injuries. Bacterial and fungal infections have been reported, but are not common. Infection is more likely to occur if the spines or thorns are retained or incompletely removed.
    3) SEVERE INJURY: Imbedded spines or plant thorns (eg, palm thorns are more likely to cause secondary complications) retained for long periods have resulted in foreign body granulomatous inflammation, synovitis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis and periostitis.

Heent

    3.4.3) EYES
    A) KERATOCONJUNCTIVITIS: Two cases caused by Opuntia glochids have been reported (Whiting & Bristow, 1975).

Genitourinary

    3.10.2) CLINICAL EFFECTS
    A) TRAUMATIC PERFORATION OF BLADDER
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) CASE REPORT: A 69-year-old man fell onto a thorny bush and developed a penetrating wound at the base of his scrotum that pierced the proximal penile urethra on the ventral wall that passed into the bladder. Initially, the only symptom noted was urine leakage from the scrotum during micturition only. A long thorn was found on radiologic exam. A communication between the urethral injury and the scrotal wound was confirmed via cystoscopic exam. The thorn was removed through a rigid cystoscope. A urinary catheter was placed for several days followed by a long term suprapubic catheter that allowed complete healing of the urethra. Complete healing was observed by 6 months with no urinary issues (Tan et al, 2013).

Dermatologic

    3.14.2) CLINICAL EFFECTS
    A) SKIN ULCER
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) Mechanical damage may occur due to the spines and barbs of any of these species. The penetration of a cactus spine may create a mass resembling a sarcoma or a pseudotuberculous lesion of the bone. Soft tissue swelling and inflammation are common (Karpman et al, 1980). Cactus spines may break off in the skin and be the cause of secondary infections and cause ulceration (Mitchell & Rook, 1979; Sutton, 1918).
    B) DERMATITIS
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) Occupational dermatitis (Sabra dermatitis) has been seen in workers asked to pick the fruits of Opuntia species, especially O. ficus-indica (Shannon & Sagher, 1965). The disease is called Sabra's disease by those picking the fruits for a living (Shannon & Sagher, 1965). There is usually an itchy papular dermatitis that is most often found in the webs of the fingers but may appear anywhere, including the face, cheeks, hard palate, tongue, and gastric mucosa. Oral symptoms are more commonly found in patients who try to suck out the glochids. The skin of workers has developed the appearance of scabies or the appearance of fiberglass dermatitis (McGovern & Barkley, 2001; Mitchell & Rook, 1979; Shannon & Sagher, 1965).
    b) Extremely tender, erythematous, non-fluctuant papules were described in a series of 25 cases of spine injury (Karpman et al, 1980).
    c) Glochids (fine hairs or spines) of O. ficus-indica may become airborne and produce dermatitis in areas some distance from the plant, or be drawn into a building via air ducts (Mitchell & Rook, 1979).
    d) Attempting to suck out a spine that is causing mechanical damage or irritation may result in glochids being imbedded in the tongue, hard palate or other mouth parts (Mitchell & Rook, 1979).
    e) The glochids of many Opuntia species are irritating and may cause intense irritation. These fine hairs may be transferred via the clothing of exposed individuals (Mitchell & Rook, 1979).
    C) GRANULOMA
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) Acute dermatitis followed by granuloma formation for 4 months duration has been reported with exposure to the bristles of O. macrodasys (Bunny's ears cactus) (Snyder & Schwartz, 1983), and other organic plant material such as thorns, twigs, wood slivers (Yousefzadeh & Jackson, 1978).
    b) McManigal & Henderson (1986) reported granulomatous lesions infected with Mycobacterium marinum caused by cactus spines (McManigal & Henderson, 1986).
    c) Granulomas have been reported with a number of Opuntia cactus exposures (Spoerke & Spoerke, 1991; Ormerod et al, 1984; Schreiber et al, 1971; Winer & Zeilenga, 1955) as well as plant thorns (Butler, 1995).
    1) The onset may be days to weeks after exposure and may be mistaken for infection, hypersensitivity, or a toxic reaction (Spoerke & Spoerke, 1991).
    2) Occasionally granulomatous areas may need to be opened to remove foreign material. In one study, granulomas were unroofed using a dissecting microscope. Granulomatous papules were found that contained spines still in the skin. After removal, the areas were soaked in an antibacterial soap. These 2-week-old, swollen, and painful papules resolved quickly (most less than a week) after removal of the foreign body. A topical steroid was of little benefit prior to removal of the spines.
    a) The exact mechanism of granuloma formation is unknown, but may involve some allergic mechanism. One study demonstrated a positive skin test reaction in 4 of 6 patients who developed granulomas (Doctoroff et al, 2000).
    d) Hyperpigmentation frequently develops at the sites where the spines have been imbedded. It may resolve on its own over time (Spoerke & Spoerke, 1991; Snyder & Schwartz, 1983).
    D) POST-TRAUMATIC WOUND INFECTION
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) Infection is not common. Culture from mild lesions were negative for bacterial growth in 21 patients (Karpman et al, 1980).
    b) Periosititis and bacterial arthritis have been reported from Pantoea agglomerans (formerly known as Enterobacter agglomerans), a coliform facultative anaerobic Gram-negative rod that can be found in soil and vegetation (Duerinckx, 2008; Rosenfeld et al, 1978; Barton & Saied, 1978).
    c) S. aureus, beta-hemolytic streptococci, Enterobacter, and Bacillis subtilis have also been isolated (Karpman et al, 1980; Kleiman et al, 1977; Jackson, 1974; Maylahn, 1952).
    E) MYCOSIS
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) FUNGAL ORGANISMS including Alternaria, Candida, and Aspergillus were cultured from the SPINES and glochid collected from prickly pear, and the spines were collected from barrel, hedgehog, and cholla cacti. No fungi were cultured from the wounds of patients in this series (Karpman et al, 1980). An Alternaria tenosynovitis was reported after a thorn penetration in a 6-year-old boy. The digital flexor tendon sheath was penetrated. Treatment consisted of tenosynovectomy and prolonged itraconazole treatment (Brady & Sommerkamp, 2001) (Turkal & Baumgardner (1995) report Candida parapsilosis from a rose thorn.
    b) CASE REPORT: A 6-year-old boy fell onto a cholla cactus (Opuntia species) with several spines retained in his arm and flank area (the spines were removed by a parent). One week after the initial injury the patient developed severe abdominal pain; surgical evaluation found a thrombosed renal artery with an ischemic left kidney. A nephrectomy was performed. Persistent abdominal pain and poor wound healing were observed and Apophysomyces elegans was cultured from the wound site. Despite a complicated hospital course with ongoing infection and multiple wound debridements, the child had a full recovery following liposomal Amphotericin B infusions (Burrell et al, 1998).
    F) SKIN IRRITATION
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) Some cacti may contain irritants or allergens that cause reactions.
    b) Various Euphorbia species have spines and resemble cacti. Many of these species have an irritant effect, and sometimes allergic material in their sap may produce large blisters. If blistering and a white latex is involved, consider that there may be Euphorbia dermatitis as well as mechanical damage (McGovern & Barkley, 2001). Please refer to the PLANTS-EUPHORBIACEAE management for further information.
    G) ITCHING OF SKIN
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) Application of Cactus grandiflora to the skin has caused pruritus, pustules, and excoriations (Mitchell & Rook, 1979).
    b) The inflammatory response to cactus spines may be caused by allergy to the fungus Alternaria, which was cultured in 17/25 spines collected from various cactus species (Karpman et al, 1980).
    c) Intradermal skin testing using cholla and prickly pear antigen induced an allergic reaction in 7/9 subjects, however, scratch testing in the same subjects caused a reaction in only two subjects (Schreiber et al, 1977). Patch testing using extracts from the seeds and fruit from prickly pear in 12 subjects failed to elicit an antigen-antibody response (Shannon & Sagher, 1965).

Musculoskeletal

    3.15.2) CLINICAL EFFECTS
    A) SYNOVITIS
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) Synovitis may be due to imbedded thorns (Miller et al, 2000; Kahn, 1978).
    b) PLANT THORN SYNOVITIS is a term used to describe the spectrum of monoarticular arthritis, joint effusions, para-articular erosions, periosteal reactions, and soft tissue inflammation with periostitis when thorns become embedded. The type of thorn is of little significance (Miller et al, 2000; Sperber et al, 1990).
    c) The affected joint may be a finger, wrist, elbow, knee, or ankle (Stevens et al, 2000; Ramanathan & Luiz, 1990; Doig & Cole, 1990). Cases may simulate juvenile rheumatoid arthritis with monoarticular involvement and septic arthritis (Taskiran & Toros, 2002).
    d) ROSE THORN INJURY: CASE REPORT: A 57-year-old healthy man was pricked by a rose thorn in the knee and developed increased swelling and pain in the knee about 2 weeks after the event. He had a large intraarticular effusion. A plain film x-ray was normal. Aspiration of the knee, resulted in 60 mL of purulent fluid which later grew Pantoea agglomerans. Urgent arthroscopy of the knee was performed which showed mild synovitis and no evidence of an intraarticular foreign body. He gradually recovered with antibiotic therapy (temocillin) (Duerinckx, 2008).
    e) ZANTHOXYLUM AILANTHOIDES THORN INJURY: CASE REPORT: A 58-year-old woman developed plant thorn synovitis after a bristle of Zanthoxylum ailanthoides (an aromatic plant from East Asia) penetrated her hand. Initially, she removed the thorn herself. About 3 weeks later she developed painful swelling of her third metacarpo-phalangeal joint. High-resolution ultrasonography detected a 2.7 mm foreign body and synovial proliferation at the joint. The thorn and surrounding granulomatous synovial tissue was removed surgically, and synovitis resolved completely (Tung et al, 2007).
    B) BACTERIAL ARTHRITIS
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) SUMMARY: Although not reported frequently, a thorn injury to a joint can mimic septic arthritis. A careful history of a penetrating injury to the knee or a joint by plant material should be considered when evaluating a patient with sudden pain and swelling of a joint (Rave et al, 2012; Clarke & McCaffrey, 2007; Kratz et al, 2003).
    b) PALM THORN INJURY: A 14-year-old boy developed septic arthritis after a palm thorn penetrated his knee. He was initially treated with oral amoxicillin-clavulanate for 10 days. Six weeks later, significant swelling and pain in the knee with a limited range of motion (both active and passive) developed. Aspiration yielded 80 mL of purulent fluid that was positive for leukocytes only; final culture results were positive for Pantoea agglomerans and amoxicillin-clavulanate (3 g/day) IV was started. An ultrasound was positive for fluid accumulation in the suprapatellar bursa and an 8 mm long foreign body. An initial arthrotomy revealed no foreign body. However, after minimal clinical improvement, a second arthrotomy was performed and fragments of a foreign body and pus were found lateral to the initial location. A postoperative ultrasound was negative. He recovered completely (Kratz et al, 2003).
    c) PALM THORN INJURY: A 4-year-old boy developed septic arthritis of the knee after suspected Bougainvillea or palm thorn injury. Initially, he did well with oral cephalexin but swelling and pain returned 2 weeks later. An ultrasound detected a 5 mm thorn. Arthroscopy was performed and the thorn was removed, and there was evidence of mild synovitis. The initial culture was sent for further evaluation and Pantoea agglomerans was identified. Cefuroxime IV was started for 1 week followed by oral amoxicillin-clavulanate for 3 weeks. The child had been exposed to palms during a religious ceremony. Recovery was uneventful (Rave et al, 2012).
    C) OSTEOMYELITIS
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) CASE REPORTS: Osteomyelitis secondary to a thorn prick in the foot was reported in 4 individuals that had been walking barefoot. In each case, the injury had occurred months before presentation. Surgical exploration was needed to remove the thorn and granulation tissue when present. Of the 2 patients that had positive cultures; one grew Pseudomonas aeruginosa and one grew Staphylococcus aureus. Each recovered with surgical removal (Vidyadhara & Rao, 2006).
    b) Osteoblastic or osteolytic changes have been reported to be due to imbedded thorns (Lampe & McCann, 1985).
    c) Bone changes resembling tumoral lesions or pseudotumors have been reported from palm tree thorns. Three cases of young boys presented with pain, local inflammation, and radiographic evidence of bone changes. The causative agent and correct diagnosis was not made until the thorns were removed surgically. Post operative care was unremarkable (Vega et al, 2001).
    D) PERIOSTITIS
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) PALM THORN INJURY: A young adult with a history of aphasia and deafness developed a sudden onset of pain and swelling without discharge in his foot and was diagnosed palm thorn-induced periostitis. Two years previously, he reported that something had pricked his foot. He had swelling and tenderness at the base of the fourth metatarsal. Laboratory analysis was normal. An x-ray showed evidence of an osteolytic lesion, and a CT showed an oblique dorso-plantar channel with thickening of the soft tissue on the dorsal side. During surgical exploration, a 2.5 cm palm thorn was removed along with a granuloma; no bone grafting was needed. The patient was placed on prophylactic antibiotic therapy (ie, amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) for several months due to the patient walking barefoot most of the time. At 3 months follow-up, the patient was asymptomatic (Madhar et al, 2013).
    b) PALM THORN INJURY: A 10-year-old boy had a history of pain and swelling of the dorsum of the foot for 2 months with a prior history of playing on a date palm plantation 3 months earlier. The child reported no specific injury. A routine x-ray revealed periosteal inflammation over the fourth metatarsal. An ultrasound showed a granuloma between the third and fourth metatarsal, and a CT scan detected a foreign body in the fourth metatarsal. During surgery, a 17 mm date thorn and granulation tissue were removed. Culture of the excised tissue remained negative (Suresh, 2011).
    E) CONTRACTURE OF PALMAR FASCIA
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) Dupytrens contracture developed in a patient with a retained spine. The symptoms resolved upon removal of the spine (Karpman et al, 1980).
    F) INFLAMMATION
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) INFLAMMATION and pain developed in a 3-year-old with a 40 cm spine retained in the cartilaginous epiphysis of the proximal tibia (Stevens et al, 1995).

Endocrine

    3.16.2) CLINICAL EFFECTS
    A) HYPOGLYCEMIA
    1) WITH POISONING/EXPOSURE
    a) Decreased serum glucose levels and serum insulin levels have been observed in non-insulin dependent diabetics after ingestion of stems of Opuntia sterptacantha (Frati-Munari et al, 1988). It is unknown if this effect was due to the pulp of the plant, or the effect of swallowing the thorns.

Monitoring Parameters Levels

    4.1.1) SUMMARY
    A) Identification of large retained spines may be aided using ultrasound, computed tomography, and/or magnetic resonance imaging. Routine plain radiologic exams are usually not helpful in identifying spines or plant thorns.
    B) No specific lab work (CBC, electrolytes) is needed unless otherwise clinically indicated.
    C) Wound cultures are usually negative. Histiologic examination of wounds shows acute and chronic inflammation.
    D) Retained spine material may stain red with PAS.
    E) In rare cases, palm thorn injuries have resulted in Pantoea agglomerans infections especially if the thorn was retained for a long period.
    4.1.2) SERUM/BLOOD
    A) BLOOD/SERUM CHEMISTRY
    1) No specific lab work (CBC, electrolytes) is needed unless otherwise clinically indicated.
    4.1.4) OTHER
    A) OTHER
    1) CULTURES
    a) CACTUS THORN INJURIES
    1) Wound and joint cultures are often negative (Karpman et al, 1980).
    2) Histologic examination of wounds may show pieces of the retained spine, which may stain red with PAS (Schreiber et al, 1971). Signs of acute and chronic inflammation including, histiocytes, eosinophils, and foreign body giant cells have been described (Schreiber et al, 1971; Shannon & Sagher, 1965).
    b) PALM THORN INJURIES
    1) Septic arthritis with positive cultures for Pantoea agglomerans is rarely reported in the literature (Rave et al, 2012).
    2) In several cases of septic arthritis following penetrating palm thorn injuries, cultures that were initially negative did grow Pantoea agglomerans (formerly known as Enterobacter agglomerans or Erwinia herbicola), a gram-negative bacteria. This bacteria can be found in human and animal feces and in plants. In one study, the synovial culture was analyzed using broad spectrum 16S rDNA polymerase chain reaction (Rave et al, 2012; Kratz et al, 2003; Duerinckx, 2008).

Radiographic Studies

    A) RADIOGRAPHIC-OTHER
    1) Finding imbedded cactus spines or plant (eg, palm) thorns can be difficult. They are rarely identified by conventional x-rays (Kratz et al, 2003; Lindsey & Lindsey, 1988), but xerography (Pond & Lindsey, 1977) computed tomography (Suresh, 2011; Klein & McGahan, 1985) and magnetic resonance imaging (Said et al, 2011; Stevens et al, 2000; Stevens et al, 1995) have been successful in identifying the presence of a foreign body or a foreign body granuloma.
    B) MULTIDETECTOR CT
    1) A multidetector CT scan has been used successfully to identify wooden foreign bodies including the size and location. In one case, it was able to clearly identify the location of a thorn that was lying obliquely in the posterolateral compartment of the knee in a teenager. An ultrasound showed the possible presence of a foreign body and a MRI showed a high intensity signal in the posterolateral area of the knee but no clear identification (Said et al, 2011).
    C) ULTRASOUND
    1) PALM THORN INJURY: CASE REPORTS: In separate case reports, two children with penetrating palm thorn injuries were diagnosed by using ultrasound (Kratz et al, 2003; Rave et al, 2012) and in another child with a palm thorn injury an ultrasound revealed a foreign body granuloma and a CT confirmed the presence of a thorn (Said et al, 2011).
    a) In one case, a 14-year-old boy developed septic arthritis after a palm thorn penetrated his knee. An initial, radiologic exam showed soft tissue swelling but no foreign body. An ultrasound was able to detect a 8 mm long foreign body. An initial arthrotomy revealed no foreign body. However, after minimal clinical improvement, a second arthrotomy was performed and fragments of a foreign body and pus were found lateral to the initial location. A postoperative ultrasound was performed to determine if all thorn fragments had been removed. The ultrasound was negative and recovery was uneventful (Kratz et al, 2003).
    2) NON-HUMAN EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES: Two studies have investigated the reliability of using ultrasound and radiography in the detection of foreign bodies. Portable ultrasound was useful in identifying Agave cactus spine imbedded in a cube of beef with 10/10 specimens identified (Schlarger et al, 1991). A similar experiment using a chicken thigh only demonstrated a 30% sensitivity at detecting a cactus spine. Radiography never detected the cactus spine in this model (Mantheny et al, 1996).

Life Support

    A) Support respiratory and cardiovascular function.

Patient Disposition

    6.3.5) DISPOSITION/DERMAL EXPOSURE
    6.3.5.1) ADMISSION CRITERIA/DERMAL
    A) Hospital admission is unlikely to be necessary in most cases unless surgery is necessary to remove a deeply imbedded spine or thorn.
    6.3.5.2) HOME CRITERIA/DERMAL
    A) Small spines that are easily removed using an adhesive may be managed at home if all spines appear to be removed. If irritation, swelling, erythema, or pain develop, further evaluation is warranted.
    B) Most cases of cactus spine injuries are dealt with by removal of the spines and the use of topical corticosteroids. Usually, granulomatous reactions resolve within 2 to 4 months (Doctoroff et al, 2000).
    6.3.5.3) CONSULT CRITERIA/DERMAL
    A) Surgical consultant should be considered in cases with a deeply imbedded spine, particularly if the spine is suspected or found to be in a joint or tendon.
    6.3.5.5) OBSERVATION CRITERIA/DERMAL
    A) Physician evaluation may be necessary for small spines not easily removed with adhesives or tweezers; for removal of retained spines and deeply imbedded spines. Persistent inflammation or signs of infection should be evaluated by a physician.

Monitoring

    A) Identification of large retained spines may be aided using ultrasound, computed tomography, and/or magnetic resonance imaging. Routine plain radiologic exams are usually not helpful in identifying spines or plant thorns.
    B) No specific lab work (CBC, electrolytes) is needed unless otherwise clinically indicated.
    C) Wound cultures are usually negative. Histiologic examination of wounds shows acute and chronic inflammation.
    D) Retained spine material may stain red with PAS.
    E) In rare cases, palm thorn injuries have resulted in Pantoea agglomerans infections especially if the thorn was retained for a long period.

Eye Exposure

    6.8.2) TREATMENT
    A) OCULAR SLIT LAMP EXAMINATION
    1) If irritation persists, a slit lamp evaluation for retained spines, corneal abrasions or injury of the globe should be performed.

Dermal Exposure

    6.9.1) DECONTAMINATION
    A) Manipulation of the affected area may cause further imbedding of spines. Use care not to spread the hairs or spines from contaminated clothing.
    B) LARGE SPINES
    1) Large and medium spines may be visualized by the use of an ultrasound device. Smaller spines or fine glochids are more difficult to visualize (Doctoroff et al, 2000). Removal of large spines can be done by using tweezers or forceps. Spines of the Opuntia should not be handled because the glochids may become imbedded in the fingers.
    C) GLOCHIDS AND FINE SPINES
    1) An adhesive plaster or household glue, covered with gauze and removed when dried, may be used to remove hairs or prickles too fine for plucking (Martinez et al, 1987). Melted wax has been suggested as such a plaster, but there is a definite risk of burning the patient if the wax is too hot. Various depilatory waxes (No Tweeze(R), Kenra Laboratories & Hair Off(R), Allegheny Corp) have been used with some success (Hennes, 1988; Schunk & Corneli, 1987). Various adhesive tapes have been used instead of wax and have been fairly successful. Rubber cement has also been used.
    2) Washing the affected area with warm soapy water, shaving the affected area, or brushing it with a stiff brush may be effective (Whiting & Bristow, 1975).
    3) A facial-gel which dries to a sheet or masque may be used. This generally does not leave a sticky residue. It may be less successful than a glue/gauze method and in some cases has resulted in inflammation (Martinez et al, 1987; Putnam & Lawton, 1985; Putnam, 1981).
    4) Woodworking glue (or any water-soluble glue) could be applied thinly to the affected area and covered with linen or gauze. This "plaster" is then allowed to dry for one half hour. When peeled off, most of the spines are removed with very little tissue damage (Gelbard, 1984).
    5) An animal study done by Martinez et al (1987) showed that tweezers alone removed 76 percent of imbedded spines and required 3.6 minutes. Glue and gauze alone removed 63 percent and took 35 minutes. A combination of both removed 95 percent of the spines. A peel-off facial mask removed 38 percent and required 32 minutes. Adhesive tape removed about 30 percent and was not very useful after an initial application. Facial mask covered with a cloth removed only 7 percent. They concluded that removal of large clumps should be done with tweezers and the remainder removed with a fine layer of household glue covered with gauze.
    6) Hennes (1988) used a hair removal wax product (Hair-Off by Allegheny Corp) to remove spines, including ones between the fingers. No skin reaction was seen.
    D) IMBEDDED SPINES
    1) Deeply imbedded spines need to be removed to prevent secondary infection and possible ulceration. This may need to be done under a local anesthetic.
    2) Superficially imbedded spines may be removed by placing a 25 gauge needle under the spine and lifting it and removing it much like a sliver. Some small fragments (2 to 3 mm) that have not become deeply imbedded, may not need to be removed. If the patient is seen 24 hours or more after an exposure, and these small fragments are not inflamed, they may just be in the epidermis and will not need to be removed. Inflamed fragments should be removed.
    E) FINE IMBEDDED SPINES
    1) If the spines are too fine to be removed by plucking, and too firmly imbedded to be removed with an adhesive, cold soaks (applied for several hours at a time) may bring the prickles close enough to the surface to be removed.
    F) PLANT THORN SYNOVITIS
    1) The condition may occur from thorns for many different plants including cactus, sea urchin spines, sentinel palm, blackthorns, Spanish bayonet, rose thorns, or even wood slivers (Sperber et al, 1990).
    2) The fluid should be cultured and the patient treated with appropriate antibiotic therapy as indicated (Kratz et al, 2003; Suresh, 2011).
    3) Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may help with alleviation of symptoms (Snyder & Schwartz, 1983).
    4) The material may only become evident on microscopic tissue examination, exploratory surgery, or arthroscopy (Kratz et al, 2003; Suresh, 2011; Cahill & King, 1984; Carandell et al, 1980). Multi-view x-rays, fluoroscopic localization, dye injection at puncture site, and operative stereotaxic equipment have all been used to localize embedded foreign bodies (Gilsdorf, 1986).
    5) Other diagnostic studies that have successfully identified imbedded spines or thorns: ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography (Kratz et al, 2003; Suresh, 2011; Tung et al, 2007).
    6) Irrigation of the joint with normal saline may be all that is required (5 of 7 cases in one series) but arthrotomy and synovectomy may be required in some cases (Ramanathan & Luiz, 1990; Doig & Cole, 1990).

General Bibliography

    1) Barton LL & Saied KR: Thorn-induced arthritis. J Pediatrics 1978; 93:322-327.
    2) Borja CA: An unusual bone reaction to an organic foreign body in the hand. Clin Orthop 1963; 30:188.
    3) Brady R & Sommerkamp TG: Thorn-induced Alternaria flexor tenosynovitis of the hand. Ped Infect Dis J 2001; 20:1097-1098.
    4) Burrell SR, Ostlie DJ, & Saubolle M: Apophysomyces elegans infection associated with cactus spine injury in an immunocompetent pediatric patient. Ped Infect Dis J 1998; 17:663-664.
    5) Butler WP: Plant thorn granuloma. Mil Med 1995; 160:39.
    6) Cahill N & King JD: Plant thorn synovitis. J Pediatr Orthop 1984; 4:175-179.
    7) Carandell M, Roig D, & Benasco C: Plant thorn synovitis. J Rheumatol 1980; 7:567-569.
    8) Clarke JD & McCaffrey DD: Thorn injury mimicking a septic arthritis of the knee. Ulster Med J 2007; 76(3):164-165.
    9) Doctoroff A, Vidimos AT, & Taylor JS: Cactus skin injuries. Cutis 2000; 65:290-292.
    10) Doig SG & Cole WG: Plant thorn synovitis. Resolution following total synovectomy. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72-B:514-515.
    11) Duerinckx JF: Case report: subacute synovitis of the knee after a rose thorn injury: unusual clinical picture. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466(12):3138-3142.
    12) Frati-Munari AC, Gordillo BE, & Attamirano P: Hypoglycemia effect of Opuntia streptacantha Lemaire in NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1988; 11:63-66.
    13) Gelbard MK: Removal of small cactus spines from the skin. JAMA 1984; 252:3368.
    14) Gerle RD: Thorn-induced pseudotumors of the bone. Br J Radiol 1971; 44:642.
    15) Hennes H: Removal of cactus spines from the skin. AJDC 1988; 142:587.
    16) Jackson CT: Thorn osteomyelitis. Br J Clin Pract 1974; 28:356.
    17) Kahn B: Foreign body (palm thorn) in knee joint. Clin Orthoped 1978; 135:104-106.
    18) Karpman RR, Spark RP, & Fried M: Cactus thorn injuries to the extremeties: their management and etiology. Arizona Med 1980; 37:849-851.
    19) Kelly JJ: Black thorn inflammation (abst). J Bone Joint Surg 1966; 48-B:474.
    20) Kleiman MD, Elfenbein DS, & Wolf EL: Periosteal reaction due to foreign body-induced inflammation of soft tissue. Pediatrics 1977; 60:638.
    21) Klein B & McGahan JP: Thorn synovitis: CT diagnosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1985; 9:1135-1136.
    22) Kratz A, Greenberg D, Barki Y, et al: Pantoea agglomerans as a cause of septic arthritis after palm tree thorn injury; case report and literature review. Arch Dis Child 2003; 88(6):542-544.
    23) Lampe KF & McCann MA: AMA Handbook of Poisonous and Injurious Plants, American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, 1985.
    24) Lindsey D & Lindsey NE: Cactus spine injuries. Am J Emerg Med 1988; 6:362-369.
    25) Madhar M, Sammous Y, Bouslous J, et al: Osteitis of the fourth metatarsal caused by a date palm thorn in a child: why the dorsum of the foot is the most commonly injured site. J Foot Ankle Surg 2013; 52(1):84-87.
    26) Mantheny DE, Storrow AB, & Milbourn JM: Ultrasound versus radiography in the detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies. Ann Emerg Med 1996; 28:7-9.
    27) Martinez TT, Jerome M, & Barry RC: Removal of cactus spines from the skin. AJDC 1987; 141:1291-1292.
    28) Maylahn DJ: Thorn-induced "tumors" of bone. J Bone Joint Surg 1952; 34:386.
    29) McGovern TW & Barkley TM: Botanical briefs: prickly pear cactus - Opuntia miller. Cutis 2001; 68:188-190.
    30) McKellar: Chronic septic arthritis caused by foreign bodies (abstract). J Bone Joint Surg 1960; 42-B:405.
    31) McManigal SA & Henderson JC: Mycobacterium marinum infection associated with cactus spine injury. J Med Technol 1986; 3:235-236.
    32) Miller EB, Gilad A, & Schattner A: Cactus thorn arthritis: case report and review of the literature. Clin Rheumatol 2000; 19:490-491.
    33) Mitchell J & Rook H: Botanical Dermatology, Greengrass, Vancouver, BC, 1979.
    34) Ormerod AD, White MI, & Eastmond CJ: Plant-thorn synovitis occurring in a child with psoriatic arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1984; 23:296-297.
    35) Pizzetti M: Guide to Cacti and Succulents, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1985.
    36) Pond GD & Lindsey D: Localization of cactus, glass and other foreign bodies in soft tissues. Ariz Med 1977; 34:700-702.
    37) Putnam MH & Lawton MB: Resourceful women unmask cactus spines. JAMA 1985; 253:2830.
    38) Putnam MH: Simple cactus spine removal. J Pediatr 1981; 98:233.
    39) Ramanathan EB & Luiz CP: Date palm thorn synovitis. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72-B:512-513.
    40) Rave O, Assous MV, Hashkes PJ, et al: Pantoea agglomerans foreign body-induced septic arthritis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2012; 31(12):1311-1312.
    41) Rosenfeld R, Spigelblatt L, & Chicoine R: Thorn-induced periostitis associated with Enterobacter agglomerous infection. CMA J 1978; 119:925-928.
    42) Said HG, Masoud MA, Yousef HA, et al: Multidetector CT for thorn (wooden) foreign bodies of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19(5):823-825.
    43) Schlarger D, Sanders AB, & Wiggins D: Ultrasound for the detection of foreign bodies. Ann Emerg Med 1991; 20:189-191.
    44) Schreiber MM, Shapiro SI, & Berry CA: Cactus granulomas of the skin. An allergic phenomenon. Arch Dermatol 1971; 104:374.
    45) Schunk JE & Corneli HM: Cactus spine removal. J Pediatrics 1987; 110:667.
    46) Shannon J & Sagher: Sabra dermatitis. Occupational dermatitis caused by contact with prickly pear. Derm Int 1965; 4:125.
    47) Snyder RA & Schwartz RA: Cactus bristle implantation: report of an unusual case initially seen with rows of yellow hairs. Arch Dermatol 1983; 119:152-154.
    48) Sperber AD, Howard CB, & Dekel S: Date palm thorn injury - an animal model. Isr J Med Sci 1990; 26:58-60.
    49) Spoerke DG & Spoerke SE: Granuloma formation induced by spines of the cactus, Optunia Acanthocarpa. Vet Hum Toxicol 1991; 33:342-344.
    50) Stevens KJ, Theologis T, & McNally EG: Imaging of plant-thorn synovitis. Skeletal Radiol 2000; 29:605-608.
    51) Stevens MA, DeCoster TA, & Renwick SE: Cactus thorn embedded in the cartilaginous proximal tibia. West J Med 1995; 162:57-59.
    52) Sugarman DG, Sugarman M, & Stobie DG: Plant thorn synovitis. Arth Rheum 1977; 20:1:125-1-128.
    53) Suresh SS: Periostitis of the metatarsal caused by a date palm thorn in a child: a case report. J Foot Ankle Surg 2011; 50(2):227-229.
    54) Sutton RL: In discussion of Lain. JAMA 1918; 71:1116.
    55) Tan GH, Ho CC, Bahadzor B, et al: An unusual cause of a penetrating injury to the anterior urethra: a thorny situation. Clin Ter 2013; 164(1):35-37.
    56) Taskiran E & Toros T: Chronic synovitis caused by a date palm thorn. An unusual clinical picture. Arthroscopy 2002; 18:E7.
    57) Tung CH, Chen YH, Lan HH, et al: Diagnosis of plant-thorn synovitis by high-resolution ultrasonography: a case report and literature review. Clin Rheumatol 2007; 26(5):849-851.
    58) Vidyadhara S & Rao SK: Thorn prick osteomyelitis of the foot in barefoot walkers: a report of four cases. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2006; 14(2):222-224.
    59) Weston WJ: Thorn and twig-induced pseudotumors of bone and soft tissue. Br J Radiol 1963; 36:323.
    60) Whiting DA & Bristow JH: Dermatitis and keratoconjunctivitis caused by a prickly pear (Opuntia Microdasys). South Afr Med J 1975; 49:1445.
    61) Winer LH & Zeilenga RH: Cactus granulomas of the skin: report of a case. Arch Dermatol 1955; 72:566.